Brady and Montana Factually

[signbabybrady]

The '87 49ers 13-2 (10-2 if you don't count the 3-0 record with strikebusters) and were #1 on both offense and defense. They were the runaway favorites to win SB22. They ended up one-and-done as Montana got *benched* in favor of Steve Young in a blowout home loss to the Vikings. This was the 3rd straight year of one-and-done...

In '86, the 49ers got demolished by the eventual champion Giants, putting up a measly 3 points in the process. Montana got knocked out of the game by Jim Burt (while throwing a pick-6 to LT). They just didn't have the team to win it all that year.

In '85, the defending champion 49ers made the playoffs as a wildcard, but went to NY and bowed out meakly 17-3. Montana had a rough day.

His 49ers also had some close calls (a la 2006 Pats) to making the big game:

In '83, they lost a heartbreaking NFCCG in Washington when Ronnie Lott got called for a *very* questionable PI (or hold) call away from the play. Although many 49ers attributed this loss as the motivator for their 18-1 title season the next year so maybe the '84 title doesn't happen if they win in '83.

In '90, they were one Roger Craig fumble away from going to their 3rd straight SB and attempt a 3-peat. It should be noted that Montana may not have played in SB25 as he got knocked out of this one, too (what's up with the Giants knocking him out?) and there was only 1 week between games.

In '93, he *again* got knocked out of a conference championship game as his Chiefs fell to the soon-to-be-four-time-loser Bills.


In the '81 NFCCG, everyone remembers "The Catch" which was indeed a clutch play to finish off a clutch drive. What everyone forgets is that the rest of the game was a turnoverfest on both sides*, with Montana partaking a-plenty. He had 3 picks, two of which were outright ugly throws.

* Even after The Catch, Dallas got the ball to midfield before the WR fumbled it away. Remember, they only needed a FG to win.


They are really close and one can make good arguments either way which one edges out the other...and it's edging out as there is no clear-cut favorite.

Regards,
Chris

Great re-hash Chris.

Your out in Cali, can you answer my question. Are there many 49ers fans walking around saying that Brady is better than Montana?

I suspect the answer is no (but I should let you answer) and I again ask why we are being so modest? This Tom kid is the best of all time IMO.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Great re-hash Chris.

Your out in Cali, can you answer my question. Are there many 49ers fans walking around saying that Brady is better than Montana?

I suspect the answer is no (but I should let you answer) and I again ask why we are being so modest? This Tom kid is the best of all time IMO.

Paraphrasing the late Amy Winehouse:

"I asked the locals if Brady's better, they said 'No no no'!"

Regards,
Chris

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I have to chime in before things get ridiculous. Brady is not the best QB of all time... YET. Joe Montana is.

You can't compare stats straight up because passing was much more difficult in the 1980's than it is now. Right now we have Cam Newton on pace for 4800 yards and tons of NFL QB's on pace for 30+ TD's. The new passing rules make it impossible for a defense to stop the pass. To use a baseball metric, if you compare Brady vs. the avg QB this decade and Montana vs the avg QB in his decade, that shows you how much more dominant a guy was.

For example, Big Ben has 2 rings and huge stats in the inflated passing ero, but there is no way he's better than 2-ring winners from a long time ago.

Brady needs to win 1 more ring to be level with Montana. 2 more to be the undispited GOAT in any argument, not just with Montana.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think he is already top 3, who would you have ahead of him now?
I think the 4th = GOAT.
I guess no one wants to discuss this and interupt the *****fest.

Thanks for the stats.

For now, I'd have Bart Starr and Joe ahead of TB based simply on winning NFL championships (five and four), and with comparable overall performances, accepting that QB rating is not a good gauge across eras. I also have a hard time leaving Otto Graham out of the discussion (four), but, even though he technically played in the "Modern Era" of the NFL, it was definitely a different time, so I could see someone disagreeing there.

With four, it would be tough to say that Brady isn't GOAT since he would have done it with Free Agency and a cap. But for now, Joe never went to a league title game that he lost and he gets the edge. Starr lost his first trip to the big game in that memorable showdown with the Flying Dutchman and Chuck Bednarik for Lombardi's only defeat in a title game in his second year as HC (I was a kid in Philly at the time and still remember Bednarik sitting on Hornung as time expired in that game...BTW, there were 15 (!) future HOF'ers on the field or sidelines that day...I wonder if there ever were more in a single championship game before or since...), but Starr did end up with five "rings."

As far as "David Tyree's" head or helmet goes, as a homer I would agree, but every team has it's "almost" stories, so in the end it has to be a matter of W's and L's in big games.

Thanks again.

 

[signbabybrady]

I have to chime in before things get ridiculous. Brady is not the best QB of all time... YET. Joe Montana is.

You can't compare stats straight up because passing was much more difficult in the 1980's than it is now. Right now we have Cam Newton on pace for 4800 yards and tons of NFL QB's on pace for 30+ TD's. The new passing rules make it impossible for a defense to stop the pass. To use a baseball metric, if you compare Brady vs. the avg QB this decade and Montana vs the avg QB in his decade, that shows you how much more dominant a guy was.

For example, Big Ben has 2 rings and huge stats in the inflated passing ero, but there is no way he's better than 2-ring winners from a long time ago.

Brady needs to win 1 more ring to be level with Montana. 2 more to be the undispited GOAT in any argument, not just with Montana.

I dont really like the era comparisons as I stated before one could make an argument that free agency rules helped Joe at the time and have hurt Tom.

I also dont by the argument that Joe or Marino or anyone would automatically be better in this era. Statistically maybe they do look a little better but maybe the new rules cost Joe a SB or two as his teams would look diferent due to FAency and due to how a team would be constructed in another era.

I think you need to take the era out of the equation and I think if you factor in on a combo of winning and stats it tells a pretty good story of what the guy was capable of (stats) and what was actually accomplished (winning) and era is taking into context in the winning category as you can only beat those you played who obviously were in the same era.

Now if you have been reading my posts you will see I am basically of the opinion these two are the best and right now it is splitting hairs as to who should be on top except I am a Pats fan so my bias has me chosing him.

 

[sly24]

I really think BB's decision to not pay Branch in 06 cost us the superbowl. I clearly remember Brady had nobody to throw to except Troy Brown and I'm sure 100% of the bears fans would disagree but that year it didn't matter if it was the Colts or Pats in the superbowl, the bears still would have lost.

For 2007.. it still hurts everytime I think about it. Asante who had always been clutch for postseason picks drops an easy game-ending one. Rodney one of the hardest hitters and one of our most clutch guys in 2003 and 2004 can't shake off the ball from Tyree's fingertips and above his head. The 1000 non-calls of holding during Eli's scramble.. it's almost unbelievable.

 

[dsr]

I'm a Packer fan and therefore biased, but Bart Starr's name definitely belongs in this discussion. Best ever post-season winning percentage (9-1), best ever post-season QBR (104.8, in the sixties, where a QBR of 100 in a single game was unusual). [Rodgers 112.6, but it's too early to bring him into this discussion.]

As for Montana v. Brady - it's a draw. When they're from different eras and there's so many arguments on either side, I can't give either one the edge.

 

[tests]

I've seen a lot of QB's in my life, started watching football in 1968 when I was 6. So I've seen a ton of QB's. The greatest I've ever seen (IMO) was Joe Montana. In the Super Bowl, where it matters most, he was 4-0, enough said. Never lost a SB, and was the main reason they won all 4, comebacks, slaughters, it didn't matter, he was deadly in those games. The destruction of the Broncos (in 1989 I believe), was the best showing by a QB I've ever seen in a Super Bowl. 11 Td's and 0 Ints (ZERO INTS !!) in the 4 SB's.

Dan Marino was the best pure thrower I've ever seen, with Manning coming pretty close to that, But I think Brady will finish ahead of both of them in the alltime rankings once he's done. One thing I like about Brady is, he's humble about all the ranking talk. When he passed Montana in the top 10 all time TD lead, he said something to the effect "We throw a lot more than they did in Montana's days". Pure class all the way.

I don't think Brady is better than Montana was, though by the time he will be finished, he may come close. His regular season stats will be much higher than Montana's when he's finished, but the playoffs, especially when it counted in the SB, I feel Montana will always be the greatest of all time, of course, that's just my opinion.

damn, you have been watching football for a long time. If you do not mind me asking, how does aaron rodgers compare TALENT WISE to the other greats (the marinos, steve youngs, elways, montanas etc)

 

[tests]

I'm a Packer fan and therefore biased, but Bart Starr's name definitely belongs in this discussion. Best ever post-season winning percentage (9-1), best ever post-season QBR (104.8, in the sixties, where a QBR of 100 in a single game was unusual). [Rodgers 112.6, but it's too early to bring him into this discussion.]

As for Montana v. Brady - it's a draw. When they're from different eras and there's so many arguments on either side, I can't give either one the edge.

i agree with this. Starr deserves some recognition as well.

I think aaron rodgers (if he continues winning sbs and playing as well as he currently is) will be up there as well.

On another note, i just cant take peyton manning seriously. He is a regular season stud... but a playoff failure.

 

[FSF]

So I guess John Elway and Terry Bradshaw get bumped out of the Hall Of Fame and top 20 ratings because of the Cap-Circumventing Broncos of the late 90's and the Steroided up Steelers of the 70's ?

Given that most Patriot fans didn't even know they had a team before 2001, a quick history lesson would easily reveal that the first team to utilize PEDs in pro football was the San Diego Chargers in 1963 upon the hiring of strength and conditioning coach Alvin Roy. It's significant because the Chargers went from 4-10 to 11-3 and obliterated the Boston Patriots 51-10 in the AFL Championship Game.

Roy went on to join the Chiefs, Cowboys and Raiders prior to each winning a Super Bowl, none won any before he arrived and each won very rapidly after his arrival. Roy was the individual who introduced the little pink tablets to each team - and to be fair, steroids were no more illegal of a substance as cleats were in the 1960s and 1970s.

Football's first steroids team: the 1963 San Diego Chargers - ESPN

Although Patriots fans want to dismiss spygate because their belief so many other teams were doing it, how ignorant much a person be to think that a proven substance that was legal was only being used by one team in the NFL?

 

[FSF]

For example, Big Ben has 2 rings and huge stats in the inflated passing ero, but there is no way he's better than 2-ring winners from a long time ago.

Brady needs to win 1 more ring to be level with Montana. 2 more to be the undispited GOAT in any argument, not just with Montana.

What 2-ring winners from a long time ago are you referring to?

Jim Plunkett? The former #1 overall pick that bounced around from team to team his whole career and was even benched after winning the 1980 Super Bowl and before he won the 1983 Super Bowl.

Phil Simms? Who won a 2nd Super Bowl from the sidelines?

Bob Griese? Who sat out the majority of the 1972 season due to injury and had a combined 14 completions and 1 TD pass in the two Super Bowl wins? Granted it was a different era, but he was every bit assisted by a great running game and defense the same way Roethlisberger has.

Roethlisberger is the 4th fast QB to reach a 75 wins in modern (since merger) NFL history. By no means his he in the classification of a Tom Brady as a QB, but his career is by no means over and there remains a very real chance he'll add another Super Bowl to his resume.

Brady, btw, will never be the undisputed greatest of all time QB, because no QB will ever own that claim. And with regards to many of the earlier comparisons of Montana to Brady, none of the Brady Super Bowl teams were won due to his stellar QB play, but more due to a great team effort. The MVP years of Brady have seen the Patriots win a lot of games, but not championships. As quick as Pats fans are to state that aside a Tyree catch they would have 4 Super Bowls, but the truth is minus a Tuck Rule and freak special teams plays in an AFC Championship that Brady did not contribute to - that Patriots team was fortunate to reach Super Bowl 36. And what if the Panthers kicker did not kick it off out of bounds and the Patriots had to start off at the 20? Perhaps that final FG doesn't happen and the Panthers win the toss and win in OT with Brady not even touching the ball.

You cannot infer the breaks against you were flukes while simultaneously accept the breaks you receive without question. It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for the stats.

For now, I'd have Bart Starr and Joe ahead of TB based simply on winning NFL championships (five and four), and with comparable overall performances, accepting that QB rating is not a good gauge across eras. I also have a hard time leaving Otto Graham out of the discussion (four), but, even though he technically played in the "Modern Era" of the NFL, it was definitely a different time, so I could see someone disagreeing there.

With four, it would be tough to say that Brady isn't GOAT since he would have done it with Free Agency and a cap. But for now, Joe never went to a league title game that he lost and he gets the edge. Starr lost his first trip to the big game in that memorable showdown with the Flying Dutchman and Chuck Bednarik for Lombardi's only defeat in a title game in his second year as HC (I was a kid in Philly at the time and still remember Bednarik sitting on Hornung as time expired in that game...BTW, there were 15 (!) future HOF'ers on the field or sidelines that day...I wonder if there ever were more in a single championship game before or since...), but Starr did end up with five "rings."

As far as "David Tyree's" head or helmet goes, as a homer I would agree, but every team has it's "almost" stories, so in the end it has to be a matter of W's and L's in big games.

Thanks again.

I do not understand how losing in an earlier round makes you better than losing in a later round.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm a Packer fan and therefore biased, but Bart Starr's name definitely belongs in this discussion. Best ever post-season winning percentage (9-1), best ever post-season QBR (104.8, in the sixties, where a QBR of 100 in a single game was unusual). [Rodgers 112.6, but it's too early to bring him into this discussion.]

As for Montana v. Brady - it's a draw. When they're from different eras and there's so many arguments on either side, I can't give either one the edge.

The tough part about including Starr is that the game was not QBcentric in those days and has evolved more and more that way.
The job Starr did was as admirable, but the importance of the QB was much less in those days.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I do not understand how losing in an earlier round makes you better than losing in a later round.

My point was that, while Brady and Starr both lost a championship game, Starr ended up with five rings in the end. Doesn't matter when they lost and I don't think anything I said implied the same.

 

[Patspsycho]

As quick as Pats fans are to state that aside a Tyree catch they would have 4 Super Bowls, but the truth is minus a Tuck Rule and freak special teams plays in an AFC Championship that Brady did not contribute to - that Patriots team was fortunate to reach Super Bowl 36. And what if the Panthers kicker did not kick it off out of bounds and the Patriots had to start off at the 20? Perhaps that final FG doesn't happen and the Panthers win the toss and win in OT with Brady not even touching the ball.

No matter how you or anyone else spins it, winning 3 superbowls in 4 years is not a fluke. It's never been done before and won't be done again anytime soon.

 

[fair catch fryar]

A 4th SB for Brady will cement his place as a top three QB of all time beyond any argument.

The 4th one will be Brady's team.

Top 3?!?! If he wins a 4th SB he WILL be the G.O.A.T.

 

[PatsFan24]

If it was not for a one in a million catch, Brady would already be the best ever.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Given that most Patriot fans didn't even know they had a team before 2001, a quick history lesson would easily reveal that the first team to utilize PEDs in pro football was the San Diego Chargers in 1963 upon the hiring of strength and conditioning coach Alvin Roy. It's significant because the Chargers went from 4-10 to 11-3 and obliterated the Boston Patriots 51-10 in the AFL Championship Game.

Roy went on to join the Chiefs, Cowboys and Raiders prior to each winning a Super Bowl, none won any before he arrived and each won very rapidly after his arrival. Roy was the individual who introduced the little pink tablets to each team - and to be fair, steroids were no more illegal of a substance as cleats were in the 1960s and 1970s.

Football's first steroids team: the 1963 San Diego Chargers - ESPN

Although Patriots fans want to dismiss spygate because their belief so many other teams were doing it, how ignorant much a person be to think that a proven substance that was legal was only being used by one team in the NFL?

Your assumption that all Patriot's fans didn't know of them until 2001 is just about the same level as my assumption that your an ***hat. If the Pats had a filling up of the bandwagon it really happened during the '85 SB run or the hiring of Parcells and drafting of Bledsoe. And just for the record it wasn't JUST Pats fans that dismiss spygate for being a minor offense, but many other "so-called" experts and former coaches and players agreed as well, but were ignored because the story was just too sensational and popular to let go by the media seeing the Pats and BB's quest for perfection were on the front burner.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I have to chime in before things get ridiculous. Brady is not the best QB of all time... YET. Joe Montana is.

...

I don't understand. How can we leave Bart Starr (five NFL championships and six championship games, including the first two SB's) out of this discussion? Or did the history of the NFL begin in 1980?

Otto Graham belongs in the discussion as well. I'd be willing to admit that Graham, even though he is technically a member of the "Modern Era" of the league, played in a different time, but let's at least recognize he was a great QB, who won four league championships and who more than earned the right to be considered in the discussion of the GOAT, even if he played before 1980.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If it was not for a one in a million catch, Brady would already be the best ever.

Let's give that up...

If the Tuck Call wasn't reversed, there was no Dynasty.

If Kasay doesn't put the OT KO out of bounds, maybe we don't win SB XXXVIII.

If Donovan McNabb doesn't throw up all over himself (literally), maybe we don't win SB XXXIX.

...

As the old saying goes, "close" only counts in Horseshoes....

Time to move on.